Insured Refused to Pay Additional Premium for Assault & Battery Coverage
Post 5225
See the video at https://lnkd.in/g-h_eWr6 and at https://lnkd.in/gtcRKMiW, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Exclusion for Assault & Battery Enforced
In Golden Bear Insurance Company v. The Levee Bar & Grill, LLC et al., No. 4:24-CV-00764-DGK (W.D. Mo. Nov. 7, 2025) the bar was sued because of an assault and battery by an intoxicated patron and sought defense and indemnity from its insurer. Golden Bear (GB) denied the claim because of an assault and battery exclusion in its policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Underlying Incident and Lawsuit:
On or about an unspecified date in 2024, Defendant Adrian Hubbard (“Hubbard”), a patron at The Levee, became intoxicated after being overserved alcohol. He was removed from the bar without incident but later engaged in a brief altercation outside, bumping a female security guard. An unknown employee of The Levee (“John Doe”), perceiving a threat to himself or the guard, struck Hubbard in the head, causing him to fall and strike his head on the pavement, resulting in injuries.
Underlying Claims:
Hubbard filed suit against The Levee and John Doe in Jackson County, Missouri Circuit Court on May 20, 2024 (initial petition), alleging negligent overservice of alcohol and removal. An amended petition filed October 3, 2024, added claims of: (1) negligent supervision/training of John Doe (who allegedly had a proclivity for excessive force, which The Levee condoned); and (2) negligence in John Doe’s use of unreasonable force while acting within the scope of employment.
Coverage Denial:
The Levee tendered the claim to GB Insurance on June 26, 2024, and again after the amendment. GB Insurance denied coverage both times, citing the Exclusion.
Insurance Policy:
Plaintiff Golden Bear Insurance Company (“GB Insurance”) issued a Commercial General Liability policy to Defendant The Levee Bar & Grill, LLC (“The Levee”) for the period January 18, 2023, to January 18, 2024. The policy includes an “Assault and Battery Exclusion” (the “Exclusion”) that bars coverage for bodily injury arising from enumerated acts, allegations, or causes of action, including assault and battery. It contains a “Separation of Insureds” provision, treating coverage for each insured separately as if they were the sole insured.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
GB filed this federal declaratory judgment action under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, seeking a declaration of no duty to defend or indemnify The Levee in the underlying lawsuit due to the Exclusion. The court stayed the underlying action pending resolution.
GB Insurance moved for judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
1 Does the Exclusion preclude coverage for the underlying claims?
2 Is the Exclusion void as against Missouri public policy, which favors self-defense?
ANALYSIS
To succeed on a motion to dismiss the movant must show no material factual issues remain and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
Applicability of Exclusion:
Defendants did not contest GB Insurance’s argument that the Exclusion bars coverage for the underlying tort claims (negligent supervision/training and negligence arising from the alleged assault). This constitutes waiver.
Exclusion Not Void Against Public Policy:
Defendants argued the Exclusion violates Missouri’s policy favoring self-defense (citing a carve-out for “reasonable force to protect persons or property”), entitling coverage for John Doe’s alleged defensive act. The court rejected this as “borderline frivolous,” unsupported by caselaw.
Distinction Between Defenses and Coverage:
Self-defense is a valid criminal/civil defense insulating from liability, but it does not mandate insurance coverage for intentional/excluded conduct. These are separate issues.
Contract Interpretation:
Missouri courts will not rewrite policies to create unagreed coverage. The Levee could have purchased optional assault/battery coverage (at extra premium) but did not. Enforcing the Exclusion upholds freedom of contract and is not against public policy.
HOLDING
The motion was granted. GB Insurance had no duty to defend or indemnify The Levee (or any insured) in the underlying lawsuit because the Exclusion applies without material factual dispute. The Exclusion is enforceable.
CONCLUSION
The court declared the Exclusion applies, absolving GB Insurance of defense/indemnity duties.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance policies limit the risks that the insurer is willing to take. When insuring a bar insurers are usually concerned with the liability of the bar for injuries to third parties due to the intoxication of patrons and the actions of staff to quell disputes between intoxicated persons. GB offered the insured coverage for assault and battery at a higher premium which the insured rejected and opted for the policy with the exclusion and took their chances. When sued the bar attempted to change the policy wording to obtain coverage for which they did not pay a premium only to find itself responsible individually for the costs of defense and indemnity.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
